its own clients. United States v. Stewart, 590 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2009) (Stewart I): Sack, writing for a majority of the panel, affirmed the convictions of Lynne Stewart, the former attorney for "Blind Sheik" Omar Abdel-Rahman, on various counts including conspiracy, providing material support to terrorists, and defrauding the U.S. government, arising out of her conduct in knowingly passing information between her client and his supporters in Egypt in violation of government-ordered "special administrative measures". The panel also vacated her sentence and remanded for re-sentencing in light of Stewart's possible perjury at her trial as well as intervening factual developments in the case. Arar v. Ashcroft, 585 F.3d 559 (2d Cir. 2009): Sack, dissenting in part from the majority opinion en banc, wrote that a Bivens remedy should have been available to a dual Canadian-Syrian citizen who was detained by federal officials at John F. Kennedy airport, repeatedly denied access to a lawyer, and subsequently removed to Syria to be interrogated under torture by Syrian authorities for ten months. Best Van Lines, Inc. v. Walker, 490 F.3d 239 (2d Cir. 2007): Sack, writing for the panel, held that under New York law, making defamatory statements outside New York about New York citizens did not, without more, provide a basis for jurisdiction, even if the statements were published in a media accessible to New York readers. Blanch v. Koons, 467 F.3d 244 (2d Cir. 2006): Sack, writing for the panel, affirmed the district court's decision that artist Jeff Koons was protected by the doctrine of fair use, and therefore not liable for copyright infringement, when he incorporated a photographer's copyrighted photo of a woman's feet and lower legs into a larger collage painting, even though Koons had benefited commercially from the work. Leebaert v. Harrington, 332 F.3d 134 (2d Cir. 2003): Sack, writing for the panel, decided that a public school's requirement that students attend health-education classes did not violate principles of substantive due process or religious rights of parents who disagreed with the school's curriculum. Doe v. Department of Public Safety on Behalf of Henry C. Lee, 271 F.3d 38 (2d Cir. 2001): Sack, writing for the panel, held that a Connecticut sex-offender registration law violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, under a "stigma plus" theory, by authorizing public dissemination of information about sex offenders on the registry without first offering them an individualized hearing about